The Market Monitor Minding the Nation's Business
The transportation committee of the House of Representatives currently thrashing out the proposal to grant emergency powers to President Duterte to solve the country’s traffic crisis is inclined to limit the scope of the sought-after authority.
The committee, headed by Catanduanes Rep. Cesar V. Sarmiento, has found that the traffic problems that are to be tackled concern land transportation only and are confined mainly in Metro Manila and two other urban centers and, as such, only a limited scope of extra powers was needed to solve them.
The committee vowed that through a technical working group, it will fast-track the Traffic Crisis Bill, so that the President and all concerned offices and local government units (LGUs) could soon start managing and resolving the crisis.
“When we resume in November, a technical working group will finalize and eventually present for committee approval a bill that is complete, constitutionally sound and responsive to our actual needs,” Sarmiento said. “We will support the offices concerned and our President in their noble desire to solve the traffic crisis. Your victory is the victory of the Filipino nation. Act with urgency and know that the House Committee on Transportation is behind you. Let us begin.”
Despite the adjournment of legislative session, the worked overtime Thursday to conclude its 10th and last hearing on the proposed Traffic Crisis Bill.
Among the findings of the committee, based on hearings it conducted and its consultations with stakeholders were that the traffic crisis is concentrated in Metro Manila and nearby Metro Cebu and Davao City and that it is limited to land transportation.
Other findings were: in resolving the traffic problem, many are at risk of being displaced; there is a need to harmonize various traffic laws and traffic regulatory powers; inter-agency cooperation is a must; driver competence and vehicle roadworthiness are vital; the mass-transport system should be improved all over the country, and not just where the crisis exists; and immediate solutions must be implemented at once even in the absence of a Traffic Crisis Act or any emergency powers.
These findings were the reasons the committee wanted foremost to limit the scope of the bill to the particular areas mentioned and to cover only land transportation.
The House panel earlier asked Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade to present a “roadmap” on when and how the proposed emergency powers for Mr. Duterte would solve the traffic crisis.
Tugade was required to submit a list of projects, the timeline for their implementation and the particular traffic issues that they would address and in what areas.
Tugade was also asked to inform the committee of what he intends to do while waiting for the grant of emergency powers.
Tugade failed to justify the grant of emergency powers on a nationwide scope.
Sarmiento said that in crafting the substitute bill, they will also the support the mechanisms for those who will be displaced in the form of existing programs of various government agencies, among them the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), theTechnical Education and Skills Development Authority (Tesda), the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Philippine Overseas and Employment Administration (POEA), Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
Sarmiento added that a single traffic authority and a unified traffic system were also needed and must be supported by all concerned agencies and local government units (LGUs) working in tandem.
Meanwhile, all solutions that could be implemented right away, through sheer political will, should be executed at once, Sarmiento added.
Sarmiento also led the House panel in seeking opinions from concerned government agencies to identify the problems related to funding and procurement, the different local traffic regulations affecting the overall traffic condition in metropolitan areas, and the immediate plans they can effect prior to the substitute bill’s approval into law.
Lawyer Maria Paula Domingo of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Legal Service said that in reference to the Supreme Court rulings on the Belgica case or the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), Malampaya Fund and the Presidential Social Fund, the funding provision for the proposed emergency powers should contain a determinable amount of what is needed, its specific public purpose, and specific fund sources.
The DBM Government Procurement Policy Board-Technical Support Service (GPPB-TSS-DBM) likewise conveyed support for the bill but reminded all and sundry that, as previously intended by Congress, there should be one legal framework on government procurement, with the existing emergency procurement coverage under the law to be revisited and further studied.
The Commission and Audit (COA), for its part, vowed to assist the Department of Transportation (DOTr) to ensure that all its procurements conform with auditing rules of the COA.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through OIC-Director Leilani R. Fajardo-Aspiras of the Administration and Finance Division, backed the crafting of emergency powers, citing Sec. 23, Par. 2, Art. 6 of the 1987 Constitution which provides: “In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy, for a limited period and subject to prescribed restrictions.”
Moreover, the DOJ suggested that the coverage of the emergency powers be limited to congested areas. It also said reorganized offices should conform to Republic Act 6656 (Security of Tenure Act) and to the people’s constitutional right to information and state policies on full public disclosure, transparency and accountability, and be time-bound.
Meanwhile, Interior and Local Government Assistant Secretary Ricojudge Echiverri said during a consultative meeting in their office, the LGUs conveyed their full cooperation with all measures that will be implemented to ease traffic. They also committed to augment government manpower and resources. However, they sought proper coordination with their respective offices and the implementation of one unified policy that would apply to all.
Rep. Gavini C. Pancho (2nd District, Bulacan), committee vice chairman, and Rep. Luis A. Ferrer (6th District, Cavite) welcomed the DOTr report that the agency’s ongoing and future projects would benefit their constituents. These projects include the extension of LRT line 1, MRT 7, North and South Railway upgrading and improvements, among others.
Rep. Bayani F. Fernando (1st District, Marikina), also a committee vice chairman, said transportation-related agencies should avoid entering into disadvantageous contracts.
The former Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) chairman also inquired into the capability of DOTr’s new procurement officer to ensure that the process would not be delayed by all the paperwork and regulations.
He also suggested the hiring of foreign railway industry experts in case the present experts are unable to function well.
Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate (Bayan Muna) cautioned all related agencies to put the welfare of the people foremost in all their dealings. He disclosed the previous government’s questionable deal with two carmakers, Toyota and Mitsubishi, wherein the Aquino administration, through Executive Order 182, supposedly gave a P27-billion incentive for them to produce 200,000 cars for the riding public, instead of regulating the entry of private vehicles and resolving the ailing mass-transport system.